Non-ped and non-cycling people just don't get it. They would recommend a 6' MUP for -all- alternative traffic, both ways, and call it good. What is sorely overlooked is the safety aspect between cyclist and pedestrians. They simply do not mix well in a commuting environment as often seen right here on this forum. Maybe cyclist should simply continue to take the lane for this particular crossing. Do you think they would be happy with that solution?

Just as a reminder: In its story, the O included a link to the CPI essay written by a Cal State student. Also, you may have noticed that CPI guy John Charles posted a fairly substantial comment to the comment section of the story.

Charles and the essay writer expressed concern about the new bridge not being built sufficiently strong to support use of it by trucks over the 13 ton capacity the bridge is being built for. Interesting though, that they don't take the opportunity to suggest what weight truck they feel the bridge should have been built for, except to vaguely raise this point with the words "truck" and "heavier trucks".

A simple web search brings up a bunch of hits stating that semi-truck-trailer combos can weigh up to 80,000 lbs. Seriously...80,000 lb trucks across the Sellwood? If that's what weight truck the CPI believes the bridge should have been built for, I wish it had said so in its essay.

The CPI essay writer and John Charles think it's bad that 60 percent of the bridges width is dedicated to non-motor vehicle use...not because they think capacity for a greater number of motor vehicles should have been built into the bridges design, but that they don't think people walking and biking are going to need the amount of the bridges width that's been allocated for their use. In other words, they think allocation of that amount of area on the bridge for walking and biking, is wasteful.

CPI's Cal State student essay writer thinks a reduction in the bridges width by narrowing the bridges width through a reduction in the amount of area dedicated to walking and biking, would have reduced the expense to build the bridge. He didn't, but I wish he would have included in his essay, a reliable figure for possible cost savings of such a reduction in bridge width.

Would narrower sidewalks and elimination of deck level bike lanes have shaved, say...10 percent or more off the price tag for the bridge? If so, that might have been something to at least consider, if it wasn't considered by the city and the neighborhood. Bottom line, is that the bridge's design allows for 13 ton capacity, however wide the deck is.

I read this story earlier today and thought how rich it is to criticize bike\ped facilities for taking up too much space when the Oregonian also recently published a story about a woman on a reverse mortgage who will lose her home and get no money for it since ODOT is buying it to make way for a lane expansion in Hillsboro.